And more MAGA terrorism….
https://www.abqjournal.com/2565117/solomon-pena-arrested-in-shootings-targeting-new-mexico-democratic-politicians-homes.html

Also, big surprise, George Santos has direct ties to sanctioned Russian oligarchs, which explains where his campaign and personal finances got millions in funding….also big surprise, McCarthy promised to seat him on multiple committees because ethics, morals, laws, and patriotism have no place in the MAGA Republican Party.

Texas still has "blue laws" restricting the sale of not just alcohol but other non necessities on Sundays. Enacted in 1961 and largely repealed in the 80's, you still cannot buy liquor at a store on Sundays, and car dealerships must close one weekend day. This was their way of forcing the Southern Baptist religious beliefs of the ruling class on everyone.

Edit: I grew up there in the 70’s when you could only buy food or medicine on Sundays, and some groceries and pharmacies closed.

Texas has a LONG history of legislating religious "morality", from it's inception through today. They love to talk about their freedoms, but you really only have the freedom to follow their narrow definition of morality. These morality laws always effect the poor far more than the wealthy, often completely exempting the well off....for example, you can buy an expensive mixed drink to go from a bar, restaurant, or hotel...they even have drive through bars...on Sunday morning in Texas, but you cannot buy a cheap bottle in a liquor store to pour your own. This is typical.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

Do we have to abide by the old testament or not?

We are not under law, but grace. What we follow is the law of Christ. He reiterated many of the moral laws such as the 10 commandments but as far as the civil and ceremonial laws of Israel, those were done away with at the cross.

Because either Jesus evolved the law into something more moderate, or he was the embodiment of the earlier law.
It's one or the other.

The revelation of God is progressive. The Old Covenant was for the Jews only, whereas the New Covenant is for the whole world. The law of Moses was based on the light of revelation the Jews had about God at the time, and Jesus brought a greater revelation of God and thus a fuller picture of the law and its purpose. The law was initially given because Israel refused to enter into the original covenant God had planned for them, which was very similiar to the covenant Jesus made with the whole Earth. Jesus was essentially restoring what should been instituted from the very beginning.

If it's as you suggest, then Christians need to shut the fuck up about homosexuality and all the other bits of the old testament that they selectively cling to in order to back up their own prejudices.

Or.... Jesus was actually not the super nice guy he's made out to be.

Homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well as the Old. There is no need to refer to the OT to show that homosexuality is a sin. There is really no reason to refer to the OT for any particular law we should follow because it is all covered in the NT. In any case, Christians should love homosexuals just as they should love every other person. If they are prejudiced towards any person for any reason they are sinning just as equally as the one they are condemning. That is what Jesus taught us to do, which is to love even our enemies.

Meh, either way he continues to be utterly irrelevant.

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595555455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369294429&sr=8-1&keywords=the+book+that+made+your+world

A very large part of the comfortable western civilization we live in and the freedoms we enjoy came directly from what Jesus taught and did. No one, regardless of what you think about who He is, has ever impacted the world in a more positive or powerful way than He did. To say He is irrelevant is to be in the dark about a large part of the history of the world we live in, and how that history shapes it today.

Which absolute moral law would that be?

Would it be the one that condemns rape victims to death, or to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)?

Or maybe it's the one that says you must stone disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18)?

Possibly you are referring to the correct method for beating your slaves (Exodus 21:20) ?

How prisoners of war should be put to death (Deuteronomy 20:13) ?
Sorry, my bad, that's only male prisoners. You get to forcibly marry the women, unless they don't please you (at which point you can toss them out on their ear) Deuteronomy 21:11

I do so love being lectured on morals by the likes of you.

Our awareness of it comes from our God given conscience, which is intrinsic and universal to all humans and cultures. Even psychopaths do know right from wrong. The existence of an absolute moral law points to an absolute moral law Giver.

So what of it @shinyblurry? What does god's perfect, unchanging, gold standard of a moral law have to say about slaughtering toddlers?

Is it written on our hearts that it always is a bad thing, or are there certain allowances made for when those evil little tykes become some sort of threat to God's sovereignty over a patch of Mediterranean coastal real estate?

God is clearly not a static foundation on which humanity bases their morals. Any cursory examination of Christian history shows that interpretations of what a Godly foundation for a life advicates have varied wildly at least from era to era, if not person to person.

There has not only overriding agreement of right and wrong between Christians throughout the ages, but also between cultures regardless of religion. Every culture has basically the same laws; don't lie, don't cheat, don't kill, don't steal etc. This is pointing to the fact that God didn't just tell us what is moral and immoral in the bible, He wrote it on our hearts. However, you are right in that actions speak louder than words. If you want to look at Christian history, it's very plain that calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you a moral person. Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruits, and a lot of Christian fruit in history has been rotten. There has also been quite a bit of good fruit as well. However, you can't pin down whether God gave a moral law to the actions of sinful human beings when the bible actually predicts the massive apostasy and moral inconsistency that you are describing. Take a look at Matthew 24, for instance.

Is there a foundation for static morality without a God to give it to you? Of course there isn't. And again I'll ask where or when we were guaranteed any such thing.

Well, it seems you agree with Ravi after all. This is exactly his point, and mine. There is no foundation for morality (or meaning, etc) without God and therefore atheism is incoherent. Atheism leads to nihilism which is inconsistent with your own experience.

But lets say that we do deserve such certainty, it still begs the question of why this foundation for morality of yours seems to have a curiously diverse array of outcomes in terms of moral norms over the millennia.

It has a diverse array of outcomes because human nature is corrupt and we can only imperfectly follow Gods laws. It also has nothing to do with what we deserve, but what is true.

Oh wait, I forgot. Your take on this whole thing is actually the only correct one, because of a personal relevation from God - of course. I guess we can now ignore all those other people who felt they had the same thing, because they just weren't lucky enough to benefit from the secure foundation of morality you have found.

It's not my take, it's what Jesus taught us:

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So your argument is with Jesus and not with me. You ask Him whether this is true or not.

And yes, spending 20 minutes detailing how Hitler and Stalin may have used certain limited aspects of atheistic thought processes to reach conclusions that are clearly not necessary outcomes of such premises, not by a long shot, and then using that to discredit an entire world view - is indeed Reducto ad Hitlerum in every possible sense of the term.

As TheGenk said, that's weak man.

Hitler is debatable but Stalins regime was atheistic at its core and that isn't debatable. Atheism wasn't peripheral to it, it was the foundation. Stalin brutally imposed atheism on the populace, and killed millions of Christians who refused to deny Christ. Don't take my word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept.[4][5]

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognised its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[2][6]

>> ^KnivesOut:

There may be some objective truth out there, but you'll never know what it is, even if someone told it directly to your face, you'll hear it through imperfect ears.
Objectivity doesn't exist as long as life is experienced through subjective reality. In other words, your eyes and ears and brain make it hard to be objective. Your interpretation of the universe is entirely your own. The foundation of this discussion is inherently flawed.


I hope you see my point. Now, you may actually be stunned because I agree with everything you're saying here, with two caveats. You could not possibly know the truth, unless:

a. you are omnipotent
b. an omnipotent being reveals the truth to you

Since we can safely rule out A for either of us, you can see that B is the only possible way we could know what is objectively, or absolutely true. That's my claim. If you can admit that God can reveal things to us in such a way as that we can know them for certain, then you have to admit that I have a route to truth through the revelation of an omnipotent being. Therefore I can justify things like morality, laws of logic, uniformity in nature and so forth. An atheist has no route to truth and cannot justify these things. That is the inherent problem with atheism is that an atheist has no basis to make truth claims, and he must admit his life is completely meaningless and that he has no value, dignity or any justification for saying what is right or wrong. That's what this video is about, essentially, that no one can or does live that way, and that atheists have cognitive dissonance because they live like Christians but then deny God with their atheism.

What moral law? I've never heard that having hookers was wrong. It's in the bible...hookers existed for as long as man has really. Also Monks and Priests throughout history have LOVED Hookers.

Also I was wondering how they would find a way to blame Obama for this.

Sorry, like I told Jimms I have OCD and now that I have the free time I am going through un-replied comments... Its 5 AM and I can't sleep! I have issues...

The only part that I am confused about here is that Paul's position on abortion is like the elderly family members you mention shoving their point of view down your throat but not passing and not enforcing laws on everyone elses' behalf. He would advocate for State's to make "moral" laws but would not provide a federal law to blanket everybody.

In other words, if the federal government banned abortion like they did gay marriage, Paul would seek to rescind that law. And conservatives would be in an uproar because some States would make abortion legal. (California's laws on Pot sound an awful lot similar to the argument I make here... He would lift the ban.) He would be termed very liberal for that opinion. So it stands that I am confused...

>> ^peggedbea:

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

You may feel you have a responsibility to spread what you believe to be true. That's all fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that. Going to people who do not agree with you, and have made up their mind, and telling them they're wrong for believing what you cannot prove to be certainly true is again an intolerance and disrespectful view of other people. You do NOT have definitive proof, no matter how much you think you do. You don't. Period. Go ahead and try to convince them. There's nothing immoral about that. It is immoral to claim moral superiority and tell people they don't have valid opinions because they don't share yours.

Do you get why it's wrong for an atheist to berate you for believing in a god when you cannot prove with empirical evidence he definitely exists? It's not right. You know why? Because they can't prove with certainty god doesn't exist either. So, respect each other's beliefs, agree to disagree, and follow the Golden Rule for interacting with others in discussion:

Don't be douchey!

Why is it wrong for you to believe an atheist has no valid viewpoint on spirituality? It's really darn simple. First, you equated spirituality to being right or wrong. Then, you said he had no valid opinion about it. If you're equating spirituality to morality and ethics, then why do most atheists believe in the idea of right vs wrong? They have ethics and morality, and theirs isn't subordinate to yours just because you believe in the existence of God.

Even beyond that, it's absurd. If I don't believe in the role of gov't in our lives, does that render all my opinions about gov't useless and always wrong? Since you're all about religion, does that mean all your thoughts about science are completely invalid? Of course not.

Why are my religious views irrelevant? It's really simple. I'm not debating which of our religions is the correct one. I'm debating how to appropriately discuss religion, morality, and ethics with others. You are not the final arbiter of truth. Neither am I. Neither is messenger. We're all struggling to find more truth. Yours isn't more valid because you're Christian.

You're also not an atheist, yet you seem to know exactly what their beliefs are about morality. Instead of trying to argue your side, here's a totally wild idea - why don't you take a little time and understand where they're coming from before you spout ignorant crap about what they believe? I'm sure you don't appreciate when people spout crap about you that isn't true. IE, why don't you use the Christian Golden Rule?

You can stop spouting your religious views to justify your utter disrespect for others and their beliefs. I didn't read a single word of it. Quite frankly, you're pissing me off, and I would suggest you re-evaluate how you discuss this topic with others using that tone. I'm enlightened enough to not hold your douchebaggery against other devout Christians who are more respectful of others. More often than not, it's not convincing people to see it your way. It's causing an irrational recalcitrance against your views. If you truly are a believer of god and trying to change people's minds to a view like your own, this isn't the way to do it. Jesus didn't act like a petulant 5 year old know it all.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.
A spiritual atheist is a contradiction in terms, although I have actually met some. What insight could someone who is unaware they have a spirit offer? That would be like a blind person commenting on the beauty of a sunset.
Everyone has the internal witness of their own conscience to tell them right from wrong. I never said atheists cannot be moral. However, God has given specific revelation of a moral law that He expects everyone to follow.
I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.
How can we have an intellectually honest conversation about personal religious beliefs if you won't say what yours are?
For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.
Do you know much about Christianity? I have been commanded by God to preach the gospel and to let people know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. That is my responsibility, and one day, we will all stand before Him, and we will have to give account for everything that we have done and said, every idle word. This includes what we did and didn't do. I have trouble understanding how you can know that I interpret the world through Christian theism yet fail to understand why I follow it to its logical conclusion, IE, obeying the will of God.
The gospel is a scandal to people because it convicts them of their sin and reveals the eternal destiny that they face without Jesus Christ. It is also the good news, that God sent His only begotten Son, who through His sacrifice on the cross, paid the price for our sins, and that God will forgive your sins and give you eternal life if you turn from them and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
I'm sorry but it isn't arrogant to tell someone that they are wrong, when they actually are wrong. In this case, if you saw someone walking into a burning building, would you not warn them not to go in there? That is exactly what I am doing, and whether you believe it is credible or not is not the issue. You're violating your own standard of conduct by telling me I am wrong, which is arrogant by your own definition. Neither can everything be definitively proven. You don't have any definitive proof that there are other minds, or that reality isn't an illusion. You cannot prove either conclusion with empirical evidence. Is it arrogant to say that you exist?
God has specifically said that He has given a general revelation of Himself in the Creation, in the things He has made, to everyone, so that no man has any excuse for not knowing there is a God. That is the revelation you have received. He has also given us a special revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. When you speak of definitive proof, what you are really talking about is knowing Jesus Christ personally. Well, that is what I am telling you. You can know Him today, if you prayed to Him and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior. That is how He told us to know Him, and God will supply the proof. Your refusal to do that is like trying to find an octopus in the desert, and when you don't find any, declaring that there aren't any. There is only one way to know God, and if you don't go that route, you won't know anything about Him. That is why you believe you can know nothing for certain, because you have been given no certain knowledge about who God is.
>> ^heropsycho:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.

A spiritual atheist is a contradiction in terms, although I have actually met some. What insight could someone who is unaware they have a spirit offer? That would be like a blind person commenting on the beauty of a sunset.

Everyone has the internal witness of their own conscience to tell them right from wrong. I never said atheists cannot be moral. However, God has given specific revelation of a moral law that He expects everyone to follow.

I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.

How can we have an intellectually honest conversation about personal religious beliefs if you won't say what yours are?

For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.

Do you know much about Christianity? I have been commanded by God to preach the gospel and to let people know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. That is my responsibility, and one day, we will all stand before Him, and we will have to give account for everything that we have done and said, every idle word. This includes what we did *and* didn't do. I have trouble understanding how you can know that I interpret the world through Christian theism yet fail to understand why I follow it to its logical conclusion, IE, obeying the will of God.

The gospel is a scandal to people because it convicts them of their sin and reveals the eternal destiny that they face without Jesus Christ. It is also the good news, that God sent His only begotten Son, who through His sacrifice on the cross, paid the price for our sins, and that God will forgive your sins and give you eternal life if you turn from them and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

I'm sorry but it isn't arrogant to tell someone that they are wrong, when they actually are wrong. In this case, if you saw someone walking into a burning building, would you not warn them not to go in there? That is exactly what I am doing, and whether you believe it is credible or not is not the issue. You're violating your own standard of conduct by telling me I am wrong, which is arrogant by your own definition. Neither can everything be definitively proven. You don't have any definitive proof that there are other minds, or that reality isn't an illusion. You cannot prove either conclusion with empirical evidence. Is it arrogant to say that you exist?

God has specifically said that He has given a general revelation of Himself in the Creation, in the things He has made, to everyone, so that no man has any excuse for not knowing there is a God. That is the revelation you have received. He has also given us a special revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. When you speak of definitive proof, what you are really talking about is knowing Jesus Christ personally. Well, that is what I am telling you. You can know Him today, if you prayed to Him and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior. That is how He told us to know Him, and God will supply the proof. Your refusal to do that is like trying to find an octopus in the desert, and when you don't find any, declaring that there aren't any. There is only one way to know God, and if you don't go that route, you won't know anything about Him. That is why you believe you can know nothing for certain, because you have been given no certain knowledge about who God is.

>> ^heropsycho:

Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect

You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

What I was doing was attacking the foundations of your argument, and providing evidence for my positions. What you have provided is a lot of speculation based on loose interpretations of our history through a secular lens. I would say I have had some success being that the claims you are making have become progressively more modest:

first post: "Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men"

second post: "I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians."

third post: "Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied)"

first post: "Yes, our government was intended to be secular."

second post: "More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government."

I'm going to be sparse in my reply. Since you have seen fit to do a hit and run, I don't intend to spend much time on this.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

No, my main point was that the establishment clause does not mean seperation of church and state, which is the basis for all of this hullabaloo. You've basically conceded this point to me:

"I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others."

You're admitting here that the purpose of the establishment clause was to keep one denomination from gaining control over the others. It wasn't to protect the country from Christian theism, it was protect the country from a particular flavor of Christian theism from gaining power. What "religion" meant was denomination religion, not doctrinal religion. So if this was the purpose of the establishment clause, it can't mean what you argue it does elsewhere.

"And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care."

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian


This is a bizzare comment and it shows you still haven't grasped my point. If you knew what you were doing, you would known that the whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is based on that letter. Obviously I was well aware of that, and fundementally disagreed with that interpretation, which is why I was busy providing you evidence that proved that this was a misinterpretation of Jeffersons intent. If he meant what you and others say he did, then he wouldn't have acted so contrarily to it during his time in government. Barbar got it; he knew exactly what I was saying. It has apparently gone completely over your head.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

When I say "shocking moral decline", I am not talking about womens rights or homosexual rights. I am talking about degeneration of civil society, the increase in crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, and many other factors which paint of picture of a country that is morally debased and getting worse by the year. I'm not saying it was ever perfect, but it had a foundation; biblical morality. Now that the foundation has been removed we are in a moral free fall.

Here are some statistics:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

Perhaps you're just very young and have no context, but in my observation things in this country have gotten palpably worse in the short time I've been alive, and most of that time I have been observing this I was agnostic. Worse yet, this effect appears to be expodential. Not only is America losing its place on the worlds stage, but internally it has become something like babylon.

The bible doesn't say you need to be a Christian to be moral. It says we all have a god given conscience that tells us right and wrong. This relativism that you're talking about is exactly the problem. If its your truth and my truth, then there is no truth, and no one has a rock to stand on. The thing about Truth is that it the same regardless of when it was written or where it came from. It is the same regardless of what people believe. And the bible is true. There is a God, and He has imposed a moral law, and those who violate it will face judgement. That is why Christ came, to save us from our sins, because all have sinned and fallen short. Are humans smarter? In terms of knowledge, sure. In terms of wisdom? Not a bit. Human beings are no more wise than they were when the bible was written. The words of Christ are wise and they are for all time. In them, there is life, and that abundantly.
>> ^LukinStone:

The problem is also that we as humans believe in a moral code that doesn't conform to natural law. With our moral code, only good people should get sick or hurt. People who work hard, regardless of who their parents are, etc., should have an equal chance of success. Etc.

But natural law and the social structures we institute don't enforce moral law, and often fly in the face of it. People don't need welfare just because they're lazy. They often need it because the system did screw them even though they did what they were supposed to.

I was on unemployment for three months back in 2004. Why? I was a public school teacher, and my wife got sick. We couldn't pay the medical bills and went into massive debt. So I busted by butt getting into IT for a few years while refusing to let my quality of work as a teacher suffer. After a few years of getting certifications and side work on top of teaching, in 2004 I got my first full time IT job at Microsoft Premier Product Support for Exchange. After being there for 2.5 months, MS axed every contractor support professional in that call center as they outsourced many of these support jobs overseas. I don't see how that's karma to me. I had no savings because I was in debt paying for medical bills for my wife, who certainly didn't deserve the medical problems she had.

This kind of thing happens frequently. To ignore that the system we've fashioned, or natural law for that matter, flies in the face of our moral code, is a selective view of reality. No one could possibly deserve being born with a genetic disorder - they hadn't done anything yet to deserve it!

That's the problem I have with honestly both harcore liberals and conservatives - neither side is right 100% of the time, so being ideologically rigid is insane. People do game for example welfare; others truly need more assistance than welfare currently provides, too. The answer isn't to infinitely expand welfare benefits nor to abolish it completely. We should improve on it. Same for other similar programs. The sooner people would accept that, the sooner we can actually accomplish something instead of having insane conversations that lead nowhere.

>> ^quantumushroom:

JONATHAN HAIDT: So karma, karma's a Sanskrit word, for, literally for work, or fruit. That is, if you do some work, you should get the fruit of it. If I help you, I will eventually get the fruit of it. Even if you don't help me, something will happen. It's just a law of the universe. So, Hindus traditionally believed it's, that the universe will balance itself, right itself. It's like gravity. If I am lazy, good-for-nothing lying scoundrel, the universe will right that and I will suffer. But then along comes liberal do-gooders and the federal government to bail them out.
So I think the conservative view, for social conservatives this is, is that basically liberals are trying to revoke the law of karma. Almost as though, imagine somebody trying to revoke the law of gravity, and everything's going to float away into chaos.